Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   Delete. Again, we have the problem of weak and policy-free arguments. AfD is not a vote; users commenting must provide a cogent argument with policy cites if they expect their statement to have any weight. The "keep" comments in one case agree that "it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct" and in the other, as commented, provide no real argument. The "delete" comments follow a similar pattern, but despite a lack of links, at least make comments along the lines of WP:NOT. The single "redirect" comment again provides no detailed rationale. I implore all users at this AfD to, in the future, provide some semblance of a policy-based, cogent rationale with their comment. Ironholds (talk) 05:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of Identity Parade guests on Never Mind the Buzzcocks

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This list is complete FANCRUFT and an excessive listing of statistics. — Half  Price  22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Guilty pleasure Keep. I know, it's against all policy and the AfD nomination is entirely correct. No references, no citations, absolutely cruft of the cruftiest sort. But also meticulously put together, beautifully presented and actually full of wonderful links and information. Any article that makes me laugh out loud feels like a net gain - this one did it with the reference to Claudia Winkleman dangling one over the balcony. Closing admin, feel free to ignore this !vote if it's out of line, but I feel this is one whereWP:IAR should sensibly be invoked. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  23:04, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete excessive and non-useful level of information. RayBarker (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete excessive trivia. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Never Mind the Buzzcocks (and redirect List of rounds in Never Mind the Buzzcocks there too, while you're at it). BTW, Kim, are you serious?  Erpert  Who is this guy? 08:10, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I was serious, but I was in a very light hearted mood that night (having just watched Eric and Ernie). That's why I bracketed my !vote with the admission that it was quite against process. I genuinely do think it should stay but I quite understand why it can't and won't. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  10:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This is interesting, useful information about a show which is well known and respected in the UK. The article is quite complete, well put together and easy to read.86.144.190.110 (talk) 20:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * First and (so far) only edit from this IP. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  20:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that relevant? When I visited (and enjoyed) the article, there was a banner at the top saying "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page", so I did.
 * I've actually made a few rare edits in the past, but I'm not technical enough to know why my IP address shows up differently on different occasions. As I said, though, I'm not sure why that would be relevant.86.144.190.110 (talk) 21:06, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's sometimes the case that edits to AfD as first-time edits or those from very new accounts are simply people who have been recruited to come and 'vote', thinking that AfD is decided on a majority basis. You're obviously not a new editor (it took me ages to get the formatting of talk page replies with :: etc!) so I'm sure this doesn't apply here. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  21:46, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.